IGert Biesta is in Citizenship and Education putting forwards is based on a strategy which we are titling Middle Man Theorizing, by which we mean a strategy of mobilizing theoretical insights from another domain into your own and thereby create an alternative pathway for possible conceptual renewals. The man in the middle” is the author in personal (here Gert Biesta) - the one who is giving voice of others (here Jacques Rancière and Chantal Mouffe) by stating their thoughts and ideas in order to re-conceptualizing a certain problematic (here citizenship education). This kind of middle man theorizing is very frequent in the educational field (as noted by e.g. Foss Lindblad & Lindblad, 2009 concerning the framing of educational restructuring and teaching in relation to professionalization theorizing) and has its own dynamic in terms of conceptual travelling and knowledge organization. It is our ambition to discuss this strategy, its strengths as well as its weaknesses, in relation to the Biesta text. Middle-man theorizing has a double agenda. On the one hand the stating of a problem, on the other hand the presentation of conceptual imports by means of which the problem is going to be fruitfully handled (solved, re-stated, re-conceptualised etc.). In the text by Biesta the very possibilities of education to contribute to what is called “the desire for democracy” both sets and solves the problem of citizenship education. “The “desire for democracy” could be seen as a condensed conceptual result of Biestas reading of the writings of Chantal Mouffe and Jacques Rancière. It is based on distinctions such as those between police/politics, antagonism/agonism, subject/subjectification etc., and is seen as the possible solution to the problems of democracy generally, an alternative both to “the logic of positive identity”, which is said to dominate the conceptions of citizenship, and to “the logic of socialization”, which is said to dominate the conception of education.

The starting point for this study is that educational reform and educational research is moving in tandem, as could be expected from theoretical insights of the co-production of science and society in Science and Technology Studies. The ideas of relevance in educational research plays a vital role here and will be in focus when the interplay between the restructuring of educational systems and the reforming of educational research are analyzed. Our focuses on prevalent ideas of relevance in educational research aims to show ways in which these ideas has been important in the restructuring of educational systems and research and what consequences it has had on the expertise of teachers and researchers. The study is based on the case of educational reform in Sweden in relation to changing demands on educational expertise and research over a period of twenty years. The case is of special interest for understanding interrelations between educational restructuring and educational expertise. Swedish education is a radical example of (global) trends in restructuring since the early 1990s, but the transition of Swedish educational research follows only recently, and still with some exceptions, the very same trends. Our analyses are based on two different kinds of sources – a selection of policy documents from the Swedish government and documentation of strategic instruments developed and used by Swedish Research Councils for the renewal of educational research, as well as an analysis of the concrete outcome of its uses in terms of approved research applications. Our results are presenting large changes in educational research policy, which has moved educational research from (a) a disciplinary organization in terms of “pedagogic” towards a multidisciplinary “educational research field”, and (b) which in tandem with Higher Education reforms has led to increased dependences and competition of external research funds, where (c) productivity in terms of international scientific publications is becoming the most important indicator for scientific quality. This dependency is combined with increasing demands for quantitative studies of school performances and international comparative studies of different kinds, all supposed to function in the control and surveillance of educational systems. However, these findings are complemented by another finding, where the relevancy of educational research for the teaching professions is emphasized, underlining the needs for praxis-relevant research either to be carried out in teacher education departments or otherwise expected to serve the needs of the teaching professions. Similar patterns are identified in Norwegian educational research policy and will be compared to the Swedish case. In sum, and taken together, our research findings shows a new and more subtle governing of the ways in which educational research now is engaging with educational practices on systems and school levels congenial to restructured education. It should alarm us for the prevalent dangers of creating an incapacity for more “radical” (reflexive and critical) forms of research practices to supersede current educational regimes.

This paper aims to analyze current impact of transnational organizations and multinational corporations in governance of higher education in Sweden. We put this in context of welfare state restructuring and performative governing by means of indicators and ranking and related to changing policy demands on research and expertise. Are these changes in higher education policy and research policy working in tandem as could be suggested by science - technology studies (Nowotny et al, 2003)? Our study will be based on policy network analysis and identification and analyses of expertise in education policy discourses. We analyze current policy discourses (since 2006 and onwards) giving special attention to what expertise that are referred to in these discourses, as well as the meanings and objects of the expertise concept in use. In relation to our aim of analyzing the impact of transnational organizations and multinational corporations in educational policy making, we refer to the studies on transnational governance by Djelic Sahlin-Anderson (2006) and the increasing use of incomplete organizing (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2010) in higher education. Concepts of "thin descriptions" (Porter, 2012) and potential "looping" (Hacking, 2004) are used here. As a result important changes in higher education governance and expertise are identified. Our analyses lead to a discussion of couplings between governance and research policy in higher education. This paper is attached to the symposium "Globalization and The Nordic model - conflicting, resisting and converting tendencies in policy of education" in Network 21, "Politics of Education and Education Policy Studies". References: Ahrne, G. & Brunsson, N. (2009). Complete and incomplete organisation (Scores Reports 2009:2). Stockholm: University Djelic, M. L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.). (2006). Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge University Press. Hacking, I. (1995). The looping effects of human kinds. Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate. D. Sperber, D. Premack and A. J. Premack. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 351-94. Nowotny, H.; Scott, P.; Gibbons, M. (2003): Introduction: Mode 2'Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 2003, 41.3: 179-194. Porter, T. M. (2012). Thin Description: Surface and Depth in Science and Science Studies. Osiris, 27(1), 209-226.

The seminars working hypothesis has a lot in common with the well-known hypothesis of Lyotard (1984) saying that when society alters so does the status of knowledge. Knowledge can as such be described in terms of a discourse where legitimation of different kinds of knowledge is put in the fore. This discourse of legitimating knowledge is taking place in societal systems (cf. Luhmann, 1996) where knowledge legitimates itself as well as the systems which harboring legitimacy. In this, the society-science interaction is especially important due to that it acknowledges important relations and settings of power. In the seminar, we are elaborating on how a society-science connection is portrayed in the domain of education where we note how educational knowledge and educational policy is constructed and functioning in tandem in ways similar to the Lyotard hypothesis – when educational knowledge alters so does educational policy, and vice versa. This connection is analyzed based on an analytical use of the conceptual space description of agora (Nowotny et al., 2003), where various activities takes place in which educational knowledge and policy is constructed, framed and disseminated in tandem. Based on historical and empirical investigations we state that one prevailing reasoning (Hacking, 1992, Lindblad, Pettersson & Popkewitz, 2015) necessary for educational knowledge and policy in the contemporary is the notion on comparativism where comparisons such as rankings and hierarchizations between educational systems are in focus and not the qualities of education as such. Comparativism implies a reduction of complexity which is required to maintain a system’s power capability. During the last decades, the dissemination and growth of international large-scale assessments (ILSA) represents a reduction of such complexity. The power of new algorithms and technologies for classifying educational systems at the intersection of international actors and national policy and science, is repeatedly expressed in education policy debates. The emergence of this approach to education has been noted in research (Carvalho, 2012; Grek, 2009), mostly with a focus on relations between different actors at work in different layers and in transnational governance (Ozga, 2012; Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson, 2006). However, few studies have investigated the educational activities for providing educational knowledge and how they together provide major contributions of educational knowledge. Based on such notions, the purpose is to describe and analyze comparativism in education in order to critically examine and clarify what claims and educational reasoning that are put forwards as well as implications for educational design and action. We search for answers to the following set of questions: - how to capture and analyze the emergence of a comparativistic turn in educational research and policy; - how to describe the dynamics of an agora in the making of educational knowledge staged in tandem processes in research and policy; - how do international and national settings and agents interact in educational discourses? These problematics will be elaborated on in the seminar with a specific focus on Nordic contexts (Sweden and Norway) in international perspectives. We approach the problematics by especially observe the function of ILSA in the society-science relations and how these are discussed on the agora leading to tandem processes of policy and research. With the contributions in the seminar we are in a position to highlight some of the relations on how educational knowledge is constructed, framed and disseminated as tandem processes in a situation dissolving the dichotomy of society-science by reducing some of its complexity. When doing so we have the opportunity to analyze the intersection between science and society as an important field of education. We will also raise questions on how these kind of knowledge is perceived by media and public.

In accordance with the scientific enterprise at large, educational research is considered to be of increased importance - for the improvement of education and for the possibilities of social and economical developments. But as funding has its limits (Ziman,1994) this has also meant increases in demands and pressures on educational research to conduct according to what is needed and asked for – e.g. to be relevant (Besley, 2009). But how are decision over needs taken and how are the balance between research relevance and research quality handled, and with what consequences? These are questions addressed in this paper whose main aim is to reflect on the role of research in processes of expertizing educational change. Reflection means here to rethink (to reconceptualise) what already has been altered in a period of time where educational research and educational research policy are increasingly run by global agendas (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010) and where changes in epistemologies could be expected to follow changes in research assessments and research practices. The study addresses questions of research quality and research relevance from a perspective where images of differences between “external” and “internal” quality standards play a vital, but different, role in different forms of assessment of educational research (see Boaz & Ashby, 2003). This external/internal divide are here seen from a perspective of social epistemology (Fuller, 2002), and the paper analyse and exemplify the performativity and translations of these divides and its conceptual specificities as they are performed. Our analyses are based on different sources - selections of policy documents as well as selections of research assessment procedures from selected Research Councils. The paper is to be seen as an extension – and a conceptual rethinking - of our previous studies on the politics of assessments of educational research in Sweden (Foss Lindblad, Lindblad & Popkewitz, 2009), Norway (Lindblad, 2013) and Australia (Lindblad & Foss Lindblad, 2013). Our findings indicate, firstly, that the conceptual ambiguities of quality and relevance in educational research assessments are founded in epistemological terrains that mirror differences in the roles given to research in the processes of expertizing educational changes. While our empirical cases (Sweden, Norway and Australia) gives clear evidence for the fact that, secondly, such differences makes a difference also for the agenda setting of research priorities and the actual funding of research, the situation could also be seen as one where, thirdly, the external/internal divides conceptually hidden in ideas about scientific quality and scientific relevance demonstrates that struggles over different kinds of research has other dimensions than those addressed in the discussions on evidence-based research (Hammersley, 2007) and/or questions on qualitative vs. quantitative research (Denzin, Lincoln & Giardina, 2006). Disciplinary differences are important here – as are questions of the future of educational research (see Furlon & Lawn, 2011) and we will here take a clear stance for the importance of disciplines, and disciplinary crossings, in processes of expertizing educational change. References Boaz, A. & Ashby, D. (2003). Fit for purpose? Assessing research quality for evidence based policy and practice. Retrieved 2014, from ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy. Besley, T. (2009). Assessing the Quality of educational research in higher education: International perspectives. Sense Publishers. Denzin, N: Lincoln, Y & M Giardina,. (2006). Disciplining qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. Vol. 19, No 6. Pp. 769 – 782. Fuller, Steven (2002). Social Epistemology. Indiana University Press. Furlong, J. & Lawn, M. (2011). Disciplines of Education. The role in the future of educational research. London & New York: Routledge. Hammersley, M (Ed.) (2007). Educational evidence-based practices. London:Sage. Lindblad, S. ; Bergviken Rensfeldt, A. ; Jensen, B. et al. (2013). Evaluering av forskningsprogrammene PRAKSISFOU og UTDANNING 2020. Oslo: Norges Forskningsråd. Foss Lindblad, R. ; Lindblad, S. ; Popkewitz, T. S. (2009). Narratives on Educational Research Evaluation in Sweden. Besley, A.C (Ed): Asessing the Quality of Educational Research in Higher Education. s. 279-292. Rotterdam: Sense Publications Lindblad, S. & Foss Lindblad, R. (2013). Educational Research: the State of Sweden and the Australian 2.2 world. The Australian Educational Researcher. 40 (4) s. 527-534. Rizvi F. & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing Education Policy. New York: Routledge. Ziman, J.M. (1994). Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State. Cambridge: University Press.

The Swedish case in a globalized context; This paper address governance by performances in Higher Education Institutions by discussing two strategies for assessing research quality, PeerReview systems and systems of performance indicators. While systems of performance indicators are of later date and has its origin in newer forms of governance, it has nevertheless usually been discussed as a system that operates on the same rationalities as the Peer-review system. Research excellence is for example still considered based on principles and norms such as those of originality and rigour, only translated into quantified figures. However, the translation of values between the two system is, we will argue, far from neutral and its significance has more to do with governance than with values per se, and, as we will argue, changes in governance includes the governance of peers. This will be the radical difference. We will here refer to the history of reviews of educational research in Sweden and to a context of changing research policies in a higher education and research system (Parliament bill 2012/13:30) that is based on increased competition of research funds. This we will put into the context of higher education and research as a system of different higher education institutions, such as university colleges and universities with large research funds.

The making of the “European Higher Education Area” (EHEA) is based on a number of initiatives from a number of actors and networks. We will here put forwards these initiatives and the actions at work. Firstly, we will deal with the making of the “Knowledge Triangle” (KT), where education, research and innovation are assumed to be the interdependent drivers in the making of a Knowledge Society. How is this configured and what tools are at work – e.g. Erasmus and instruments such as U-multirank? Secondly, we go into research assessment exercises and how these construct higher education and research, and their mutual relations. Our study is based on notions of governing and dynamic nominalism. We have analysed documents that are strategic in the construction of EHEA and KT plus analyses of RAE technologies and constructions. This is combined with analyses of ranking instruments as navigation tools and standardization of EHEA. Here, we will focus on Sweden as a case scrutinising three larger universities and their recent use of Research Assessment Exercises and put this in an national and international context. The study is resulting in presenting critical research issues concerning transnational governance in the Europeanization of higher education and research.

Research topic/Aim: Our case is Sweden with its comprehensive welfare state education. This case have been in rapid change in education during the last decades, including worldwide restructuring measures such as deregulation, privatization and governing by school performances. Our aim is to analyze education as part of a modernization project based on the development of science as well as on democracy. Our approach to this is analyses of the public opinion in the Swedish welfare state in relation to the current context of Sweden and what its educational system offers. In order to realize these ambitions, we put forwards the following research questions: • What confidence and discontent in education is presented by the public opinion? How is this related to educational levels and political preferences among individuals? • To what extent is there confidence or mistrust in research in different fields – including educational research – and to what extent is this connected with educational levels and social positions among the individuals? Given our interest in modernization of education we have a special interest in how individuals in in teaching professions assess educational research. In order to sharpen the analysis of current trends in education modernization and educational research we made special analyses of the public opinion on the uses of large scale assessments of educational performances. Theoretical frameworks: Trust has become an important factor for understanding operations of governance and educational reforms and variances of success over countries. Given the present context of rapid social and political transformations and ongoing restructuring of higher education and research, the level and objects of trust thus becomes an important indicator of possibilities and readiness of change. Methodology/research design: We have chosen to analyze the views of the public opinion considering trust in science as such and for the eventual betterment of society, with a special focus on educational science. Data are obtained from the SOM-Institute survey 2014 sent to a national sample of 3 400 individuals, out of which 54 percent answered the questions – in sum 1 634 persons. Findings: In the public opinion the confidence in the school is not very high, and most individuals take very critical stances to current developments in schooling. Regarded as indicators of perceptions of education in a modernizing welfare state, the results present somewhat of a crisis in trust of schooling. This is further underlined by the finding that individuals with lower levels of education are more discontent with recent developments in education. Of special interest is the finding that the right wing populists – often in low paid jobs – are most dissatisfied with what education can offer them. Trust in educational research – especially among those in teaching professions – is also indicating that the modernization processes in education is at work. Stated otherwise, modernization of education and schooling seems to correspond to predominant distribution of resources in society, and universalistic claims about modernization seem to be contradicted by its premises and practices. Relevance for Nordic Educational Research: There is a large need for analyzing the current political situation and its politics of knowledge and educational policies in the Swedish welfare state and in similar welfare state contexts, such as the Nordic countries.

This study deals with changing communication patterns in relation to changes in governance of higher education. Vital for research organization and development is research publication and communication. How is educational research in Sweden dealing with these issues and what are the implications of that for the positioning of research at education departments? The present study aimed to analyze publication patterns in Swedish educational research by capturing the total publication output of a sample of Swedish researchers in education. The researchers in the study were identified as researchers- from different disciplines and faculties - through their applications for funding for educational studies at the two largest bodies for funding of research in Sweden. Of these were 42 percent from educational research in a more precise meaning, i.e. from education departments or from teacher education. Thus, we can compare publication patterns in educational research (e.g. in pedagogic, didaktik, pedagogisktarbete etc.) comparared to research in other disciplines (political science, sociology, history) doing research in education as a field of study. A total of more than four thousand publications were categorized into ten publication types or formats (e.g. books, research articles, newspaper articles) and the articles were analyzed in terms of the prestige level of the journals. The results are showing that educational research is using a number of publication genres, having a rather unfocused journal publication pattern (though with Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research and Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige as most frequently selected journals), using more of Swedish as a publication language, and rather seldom using ISI web of science journals in their publications. This publication pattern is discussed in relation current changes in research policy and in relation to different strategies in research communication in order to change the social and intellectual organization of Swedish educational research in an Nordic and international context.

The Swedish case in a globalized context; This paper address governance by performances in Higher Education Institutions by discussing two strategies for assessing research quality, PeerReview systems and systems of performance indicators. While systems of performance indicators are of later date and has its origin in newer forms of governance, it has nevertheless usually been discussed as a system that operates on the same rationalities as the Peer-review system. Research excellence is for example still considered based on principles and norms such as those of originality and rigour, only translated into quantified figures. However, the translation of values between the two system is, we will argue, far from neutral and its significance has more to do with governance than with values per se, and, as we will argue, changes in governance includes the governance of peers. This will be the radical difference. We will here refer to the history of reviews of educational research in Sweden and to a context of changing research policies in a higher education and research system (Parliament bill 2012/13:30) that is based on increased competition of research funds. This we will put into the context of higher education and research as a system of different higher education institutions, such as university colleges and universities with large research funds.

Focus: This symposium concerns the making of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). It will deal with initiatives to construct the EHEA and to analyse principles and practices governing the “construct” in context of institutional restructuring and transnational networking. Problem: The EHEA makes visible a new emergent form of governing education through the production as well as reproduction of knowledge. It is a multifaceted on-going construction to shape an European expertise in the “co-production of science and society” (Nowotny mfl, 2001). EHEA is at once the tool and the outcome of new kinds of power-knowledge links, manifested in expressions such as “the knowledge society” or the “knowledge triangle”, as well as in instruments connected to the EHEA, e.g. benchmarking or ranking. Given this, it is vital to identify the dynamics in the EHEA construction, including the working by different agents, networks and tools. Theoretical Framework: The current symposium is based on a dynamic nominalist framework (e.g. Hacking, 2000). The EHEA is by this to be seen as a political construct whose emergent “beings” becomes manifest in and through a manifold of knowledge inscribed practices (e.g. Popkewitz, 2009), with governance embodied in the categorisations and notions of progress as well as the different socio-science networks (Latour, 2005) whose machinery produces evaluations (Foss Lindblad, Lindblad & Popkewitz, 2009), certifications, benchmarking and rankings (e.g. Wedlin, Sahlin, & Hedmo, 2009) and systems of expertise. In current discursive settings and university restructuring, the practices of governance are indeed transnational (e.g Djelic & Sahlin, 2006) with globalizing characteristics such as and international education markets, student flows etc. in on-going fabrication of Europe (Novoa & Lawn, 2000) Methodological comments: The contributions based on analyses of strategic EHEA documents where ways of relating higher education and research to each other is important. This is complemented by analyses of different navigation tools such as rankinglists (e.g. Kehm & Stensaker, 2009) and international networks in order to capture the dynamics at work including issues of standardization, diversification and classification. Expected outcomes: A more clearly identified arena for the EHEA, including agents, networks, tools and systems of expertise. This is important for further studies of the EHEA and in developing research cooperation on the transnational governance of Europeanization of Higher Education. Design of the symposium: Firstly; two papers on Europeanization Initiatives, the Bologna Process will be analysed with specific reference to Spain, followed by an analysis of the making and development of the new EU strategy Europe 2020. Secondly; papers on practises in the making to the EHEA, first comparative analyses of knowledge production and Evidence Based Policy in Higher Education in France, UK and the USA and then on Benchmarking and evaluations of higher education and research and how higher education is constructed in these practices. The last paper is a presentation of research on the space of actors and networks organising and influencing Global Governing of Universities. Thirdly, we discuss symposium contributions in relation to the general problematics and the a research agenda concerning the Europeanization of higher education.

In focus of this keynote is the performativity of university rankings. I will present and discuss how different kinds of university rankings are constructed and their specific ways of understanding and presenting higher education and research. Here I will focus on their one-dimensionality and potential bias in ambitions to capture the academia in terms of ranking as presented by the Shanghai ranking list ”Academic Ranking of World Universities, and the World University Ranking lists – presented by Times Higher Education (THE) and Quaquarelli Symonds (QS) respectively. I will also put forwards some features of the Webometrics list. In relation to this I will also deal with the multidimensional ranking of higher education institutions the so called U-multirank that now is under construction with the support of the European Commission. A first point to be made is that university ranking is a way to transform the multitude of university qualities in education and research, as well as engagement in social activities, into a political economy of easily visible ranking positions (jfr Marginson, 2009) presenting the higher education institutions as comparable units in one or more dimensions. Academic activities are translated into a set of comparable indictors who in turn are conceived of as presenting the exchange-value of specific HEIs. A second point is that this political economy is biased – standards are set by a number of indicators favoring certain kinds of higher education activities predominant in certain Anglo-Saxon universities. These two points concern how ranking lists represent higher education and research institutions. A third point concerns if such a representation matter? An explicit idea of ranking lists is that they should have an impact on higher education institutions for university clients as well as for university governance. I will discuss such potential performative qualities with looping implications (Hacking, 2004) for higher education research. Here I will be informed by a current study in Sweden by Sundén (in process) inspired by Espeland & Sauder, (2007) and Hazelkorn (2009) of how Swedish Vice-chancellors are acting upon international university ranking lists.

Abstract: Educational reforms are here regarded as interactive ways to deal with societal changes. During the early 1990s the Swedish model of welfare state education was transformed from a centralistic system, based on political decisions as solutions to educational problems, towards a performative turn where a number of actors participate in the governance of an efficiency-oriented educational system. It is argued that in such governance the production and use of information of educational qualities and performances is of vital importance. Thus, what does such information tell us about the performances of the performative turn? Given the ambitions to increase efficiency and to improve school results the performances are negative - the costs are increasing and in international comparisions the overall tendencies are deteriorating results for Swedish schools. It is argued that the faith in the performative turn is based on a lack of a social understanding of education and teaching inherent in the performative turn. This deficiency is serious given that education needs have to deal with social changes.

Current tendencies in educational research in Sweden are presented and compared to Australia. We here refer to; organization of research, research allocation, publication patterns, and assessments of research qualities. Different trajectories of educational research were identified, where Australian research was organized as a field of study, while Swedish research had a disciplinary organization, which now is eroding into a situation more close to the Australian one. In other aspects the Australian and Swedish trajectories seem to harmonize, except for the fact that RAEs in Sweden are initiated and run by the universities themselves. There are also some differences in how research qualities are assessed and the outcomes of these assessments. Given these findings different strategies to deal with the current situation are discussed.

Over the last few decades ‘educational restructuring’ has become a world-wide movement. This can be seen in the transformation in patterns of governance, deregulation, marketization, consumerism and the introduction of management principles derived from the world of business. Restructuring issues are controversial and are questioned substantially in educational policy discourses and research. In this book we present studies that deal with the intersection of restructuring as a change in the organisation and governing of educational systems with the work life of the teaching profession. Vital questions are posed: how are teachers experiencing and implementing restructuring? What implications does restructuring have for the teachers’ work, for education and schooling?

Firstly, for educational research and curriculum theory it is of vital importance to find ways to describe and analyze pedagogical processes over time and space. This is carried out here – over four decades and in specific and changing contexts, questioning the thesis of the persistence of recitation and the predominance of basic IRE-sequences. Second, relations between classroom interaction and social and organizational context is vital in curriculum theory and in educational theorizing. Classroom interaction is here conceptualized as a “social fact demanding historicization”. Given a communicative turn in understanding interaction we argue for a position of “contingent autonomy” of importance when designing studies of curriculum enactment and pedagogical devices opening up for more specific analyses. Thirdly, our study is based on the specific settings for classroom interaction presented as a Nordic welfare state education in transition, but point to the general importance of theorizing educational processes as changing social facts with their own qualities – of societal as well as political ingredients – giving new insights for curriculum theory as well as for educational policy analysis. Fourthly, we have highlighted the importance of reflexivity in research and in the construction of research objects as part of a communicative turn in education. This is also assumed to increase a socially robust communication of research in society.

At the core of education as institutionalized pedagogical practices is classroom interaction. Here we find sites for teaching and learning activities, the making of lived curricula as well displays of social and cultural asymmetries. Given this it is not surprising that a set of research paradigms and research controversies are presented in education research – as presented by e.g. Bellack (1978), Mehan (1979), Macbeth (2003), Gee (2004), or Lindblad & Sahlström (2002). In this paper we go into studies of classroom interaction with a micro-ethnographic stance using video- and audio recordings of teaching processes in different contexts spanning over a period of forty years. We are using this time span in order to discuss ways of describing and analysing pedagogical processes, where notions of context is vital. Our point of departure is based on curriculum theorizing using a Bernstein (e.g. 2000) approach based on relations between curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation. Given this, we put the pedagogical practices into social contexts (such as framing and classification). This does not mean that classroom practices are instantiations of “a higher order” but rather that these practices are matters of institutional work permeated by social facts. Here, we are eclectic: we use the seminal work of Mehan (1979) to describe classroom interaction with a basis in IRE-sequences (Initiation-Reply-Evaluation) as characteristic in the language of schooling. With this as a basis we describe and compare classroom interaction in different contexts. This is regarded as a way to describe aspects of pedagogy in a Bernsteinian meaning and to analyze change in classroom interaction.